Supporters rally for N.M. bases

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE — On either side of the green rectangle Obee’s sandwich shop sign hang red, white and blue banners: “We support our troops” and “God Bless America.”

Obee’s offers members of the military a 10-percent discount on its sandwiches, soups and sodas. Manager Dana Barbee talks about the politeness of the young servicemen and women from nearby Kirtland Air Force Base who line up each lunch hour.

The Albuquerque base was on the Pentagon’s hit list during the last round of base closings in 1995, and community leaders worry it could be targeted again this year.

“If the base were to close down, we’d have to close our doors,” said Velma Nassif, Obee’s owner. “They’re the main part of our business.”

Other businesses said they’d also be hurt — or worse.

“This town would go dead if the base closed,” said Phil Anderson, owner of Ridgecrest Automotive, about two miles from one of Kirtland’s gates.

The Department of Defense is expected to release a list of bases it wants to close or realign — meaning drastically reduce — by May 13.

A nine-member Base Realignment and Closure Commission appointed by President Bush will analyze the list and hold hearings before turning in a final report by Sept. 8.

If Bush accepts the report — he cannot make changes — it goes to Congress. Congress then has 45 days to vote yes or no to the entire list.

New Mexico has four military installations — the Air Force bases of Kirtland in Albuquerque, Cannon near Portales and Holloman near Alamogordo and the Army’s White Sands Missile Range between Alamogordo and Las Cruces.

Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., said all are potentially vulnerable given the number of bases the Pentagon wants closed.

But Hanson Scott, a retired Air Force general who makes up New Mexico’s one-man Office of Military Base Planning and Support, doesn’t believe any of the bases is particularly vulnerable.

In a presentation in March, he listed such advantages as year-round training, research and development facilities, academic and commercial partnerships, a skilled labor force, land to expand and minimal environmental issues.

New Mexico base advocates wanted weapons research and available air or land added to criteria to consider in base closings; neither was.

The primary consideration for keeping a base is its military value.

“There are a lot of different ways to interpret that,” said Wilson, an Air Force veteran who opposes the whole base closure process. “The Pentagon is probably looking at this round a little differently. The reason is the new concept of rapid action, mobility, new weapons systems. ... It might be a little different than 10 years ago.”

Secondary considerations include an installation’s potential costs and savings, the effect of realignment on other military installations and the impact on communities.

Wilson lists each facility’s strengths — Kirtland’s national value by housing more than just the Air Force; Holloman’s stealth wing and home to a German Air Force unit; Cannon’s airspace for training; the missile range’s position as the nation’s only overland missile launch area.

“I think there are a lot of advantages that New Mexico has, but the size (of cuts) the Pentagon is talking about is huge, larger than all the others combined,” she said.

For example, the Air Force might not consider Kirtland’s value as landlord for such operations as the Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories. If the Air Force looks only at military assets, Kirtland “may not be that attractive,” she said.

Scott said the state’s 15-member Military Base Planning Commission, which began work in August 2003, emphasizes such strengths as Cannon’s training range that has no encroachment; Holloman’s diverse missions, including its strong collaboration with White Sands; the missile range’s unparalleled airspace.

Clovis banker Randy Harris, a member of the state group and the Committee of Fifty that supports Cannon, said Cannon meets the definition of military value with its room for expansion, wide open airspace and nearby bombing range.

But Harris looks beyond Cannon, pointing out the advantage New Mexico has with all its installations.

“When you look at an overlay of all the things, New Mexico stands out as a place that we as a country ought to be expanding our military operations,” he said.

The Department of Defense spends about $9 billion a year in the state on military installations and defense programs at DOE’s Sandia and Los Alamos national labs, Wilson said.

“So it has a significant economic impact in New Mexico, and New Mexico has always made a disproportionate contribution to our nation’s defense,” she said.

The congressional delegation, state leaders and base supporters began a strategy years ago of making sure military and housing facilities on the bases were in good shape and that missions remained strong.

Wilson said they’re also planning what to do if any of the bases winds up on the hit list — or if New Mexico ends up in the favorable position of getting missions from bases shutting down elsewhere.

Kirtland was spared severe cuts in 1995 when the defense secretary acknowledged the original cost estimates for the massive realignment “significantly understated the costs of relocating the active duty units” and never considered costs that could shift to agencies such as the DOE.

Supporters of Kirtland, which lies in Wilson’s district, have again asked the DOE to point out the higher costs it would face if Kirtland closed or scaled back.

The idea behind base closings is to save the taxpayers money, Wilson said.

“Shifting costs to the Department of Energy doesn’t count,” she said.